(Close Window)
Topic: Doug Dyment's "QuickerStack" ROCKS!
Message: Posted by: panlives (Aug 27, 2011 04:40PM)
I memorized this in less than one hour.

It is genius-level memdeck thinking.

Has anyone else been using QuickerStack?

Exciting stuff!
Message: Posted by: Richard Webster (Aug 27, 2011 10:00PM)
I've been using Doug's QuickStack, but have changed to QuickerStack, as it's even easier to memorize and use than his original memorised deck. If you have QuickStack, you've already learned more than half of QuickerStack. As I'm no longer performing regularly, it's great to have a stack that I can instantly recall without hesitation, even if I haven't thought about it for a month or more. Doug Dyment is a genius!
Richard
Message: Posted by: Kjellstrom (Aug 28, 2011 05:06AM)
Here it is...
http://www.deceptionary.com/quickerstack.html
Message: Posted by: Kirjava (Aug 31, 2011 07:13AM)
Can anyone compare this to the Aronson or the Tamariz one ?
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Aug 31, 2011 10:10AM)
Kirjava asked:[quote]Can anyone compare this to the Aronson or the Tamariz one ?[/quote]
There are several points of comparison, so it's neither easy nor fair to provide a trivial answer. A fairly extensive consideration of this and related questions can be found in my online [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]essay on full-deck stacks[/url].
Message: Posted by: Kirjava (Sep 2, 2011 10:31AM)
Thanks for taking the time to write the essay. I was aware of the limitations of an algorithmic stack, such as yours, but what I'm really wondering is about the apparent "superiority" of those stack-dependants tricks: it is my understanding that Mnemonica allow to deal any poker hand called for. But, for all I know, it might even be allowed in your stack, so really, as you appeared to have really thought about stacks, do you really think learning a memorized deck (such as Aronson or Mnemonica) is worth it ?

Again, thanks for taking the time to help begginers ;)
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 2, 2011 02:15PM)
In my experience, in having looked at effects that are specific to a given stack vs. effects that are stack-independent, the vast majority of the most powerful effects are the stack independent ones.

Most of the stack-specific effects revolve around dealing any hand called for and myriad derivations of that idea. Not to say that there aren't powerful effects built into any given stack, but on balance, no single stack can lay claim to having "the best" group of built-in effects.

In fact, I use Dyment's QuickStack and have found a number of built-in effects that I use regularly that wouldn't be possible with the Tamariz or Aronson stacks.

So while it may be a good idea to look at the offerings of various built-in effects, in the long run you will likely find that the stack-independent effects are the ones that hold the maximum impact for your spectators.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Sep 2, 2011 11:33PM)
I have never considered stacks that have built-in trick collections to be superior. For one thing, the tricks tend not to be, for the most part, tricks that I personally would feature in my performances. They are tricks chosen by others for [b]their[/b] personal repertoires, and I want my work to be defined by me, not someone else.

It's always made more sense in my view to memorize stacks that have broader functionality (using principles like stay stacks, tetradistic stacks, and the like), rather than just a fixed set of predetermined tricks. You probably noted the quote from Alan Ackerman (a much more capable card man than I ever expect to be), claiming that "I personally feel the tetradistic stack is the strongest of all stacks." And I spent the better part of last weekend with another noted cardician, Robin Robertson, only to discover that he also uses a tetradistic stack for his memorized deck work.

Finally, Steven has made the most important observation of all: the [b]strongest[/b] memorized deck effects can be done with [b]any[/b] memorized stack!

The bottom line is that there is no "right" answer, only what works best for you.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Sep 2, 2011 11:34PM)
Duplicate post
Message: Posted by: Kirjava (Sep 5, 2011 04:01AM)
Thanks you guys!

Quickerstack it is for me :)
Message: Posted by: j100taylor (Sep 5, 2011 01:59PM)
Doug - In another thread I was asking about an algorithmic stack and someone pointed me to "Richard's Stack" which uses conversions to/from Octal for the algorithm. This works just fine except the math is a little hard to do quickly in your head especially during performance. Is your QuickerStack better - what's the "hardest" part of your calculation?
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Sep 5, 2011 11:52PM)
The math is pretty trivial in QuickerStack, just a single addition (or subtraction, when going the other way). For more than 80% of the cards, that addition involves a value of 4 or less. A few of the cards end up using higher numbers. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the most complicated arithmetic you would ever have to perform is 13+13.

Hope this helps!
Message: Posted by: j100taylor (Sep 6, 2011 07:06PM)
Well I have put your book on my shortlist. Thanks for the quick response.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Oct 14, 2011 03:27AM)
My copy should arrive soon. I'm looking forward to it.
Message: Posted by: Nicolino (Oct 22, 2011 02:14PM)
Does the new version looks similar in terms of 'randomness'?
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Oct 22, 2011 03:28PM)
Nicolino wondered:[quote]Does the new version looks similar in terms of 'randomness'?[/quote]
Yes ... pretty much identical in that regard. Both are tetradistic stacks.
Message: Posted by: John Nesbit (Oct 23, 2011 08:30AM)
I just received this yesterday and learned it in about 10 minutes. It is that easily done. The reading flows so smooth as well as 'quick'. I have had the previous version many years ago and this is that much "Quicker". I have learned several stacks over the last 23 years of performing and studying. This is almost miraculous in it's construct and practicality. It even serves as a teaching and learning device in itself. I started reading with an open mind but was nevertheless preparing for some stiff challenges in grasping and with calculations. None of that here. If you are even possibly considering getting this, I urge you to do so. You will not regret it. I am neither a math major nor 'left brained' thinker at heart.
This will serve you in so many ways. Yes, even with all those other stacks. The applied thinking and execution is nothing short of inspiring. I can envision extended writings around this in application throughout the entire field of card magic and mentalism in the near future. Have you ever wanted to stumble across the tip of an iceberg for mining and resources ? Here it is !
Thanks Doug

John
Message: Posted by: Jon Hackett (Oct 25, 2011 03:09PM)
Thank you gentlemen for bringing this to my attention!

Order in!

Jon Hackett
Message: Posted by: dafin77 (Nov 23, 2011 05:20PM)
Is there a way to get into Quickerstack order from new deck order via shuffles?
Message: Posted by: billmarq (Nov 30, 2011 12:00AM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-23 18:20, dafin77 wrote:
Is there a way to get into Quickerstack order from new deck order via shuffles?
[/quote]

No way that I can see. I can't imagine any way faro shuffles or the like would arrive at this order.
Message: Posted by: fyi2 (Jan 6, 2012 05:10PM)
Just got mine. I think this is fantastic. Very well worth the $$$.

Tony
Message: Posted by: edh (Jan 6, 2012 08:14PM)
Why! to the above poster
Message: Posted by: fyi2 (Jan 6, 2012 09:01PM)
Very straight forward method, simple confluence of ideas, and VERY simple to learn. Until now I have been a BCS guy. I have tried twice to get the Aaronson stack, but age or lack of commitment (Maybe both) trip me up. Now I can do all my favorite BCS routines, and stack with the many many Mem Deck routines, plus other effects that need a mem deck of some kind such as Sanda Panda etc.

This is a very deceptive deck, flys past anyone who has seen it, yet the method opens all the magic mentioned above, and I am sure a lot more besides.

Hope this helps,

Tony
PS Off topic but I also got Doug's R2-D2 and that is extremely practical to do as well.
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Feb 6, 2012 09:41AM)
I have reported the above post by Unknown to the admins. It appears that this post is spammed all over The Café.
Message: Posted by: fyi2 (Feb 6, 2012 10:48AM)
Thank you Vlad.
Message: Posted by: Magic-Daniel (Mar 8, 2013 07:10PM)
Can you tell any card at any position in this stack with out looking at the faces?
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Mar 9, 2013 10:46AM)
Magic-Daniel wondered:[quote]Can you tell any card at any position in this stack with out looking at the faces?[/quote]
Yes. It's an [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]algorithmic stack[/url], designed (but not required) to be memorized.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jun 9, 2013 10:56AM)
Would it make any sense to use an algorithmic stack such as this one and memorise the deck one faro after or one faro before this stack? You would then have the benefit of knowing two stacks. This would enable you to perform several effects with one stack and then give the deck a very fair faro and continue with other effects. This would really throw people off. I stopped using a memorized deck several years ago when I substituted other effects in my act but would like to get back into it. Rather than just re memorise my old stack I'm considering other ideas such as the above. Any other ideas would be appreciated.
Steve
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Jun 9, 2013 06:58PM)
Steve,

Any stack can be used multiply using an ages old indexing principle. In short, if you faro 4 times your stack is set at "Index-8". Meaning that each card is 8 away from its neighbor. In other words, if you have a spec take a card and you cut at that point and peek the bottom card which is stack number 18, for example. Then you know the card they took was stack number 26 (18 + 8).

After one more faro, you're at Index-4, then Index-2, and finally with one last faro you're back at your original stack.

Using these indexes you can perform any tricks that only require you know the next card. For example, any of Osterlind's BCS tricks would be fair game for these pseudo-stacks. I use this principle often and the nice thing is that it can be done with any stack. (Although the periodic stacks like Si Stebbins and Eight Kings don't look natural as you near the end of the 8 faro cycle. It is definitely more natural looking with Aronson, Tamariz, QuickStack, or any other non-periodic stack).
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jun 9, 2013 08:59PM)
Steven, thanks for that invaluable bit of info. I never realized that and it could really open up a whole new world with a very convincing demonstration while you're constantly shuffling under very fair conditions using a legitimate faro. I'm going to have to rethink what stack I want to use now that I know I could use this idea with any stack. Thanks again.
Steve
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 9, 2013 10:10PM)
Fascinating Steve, but I think you must have left something out. As described above you don't have 8 faros.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jun 10, 2013 07:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-09 23:10, landmark wrote:
Fascinating Steve, but I think you must have left something out. As described above you don't have 8 faros.
[/quote]i believe Steve meant you start with 4 faros and you are at bank 8. You then give it 4 more shuffles going to bank 4,2,1 and then your stack. You can then give it 4 more shuffles to get back where you started from. The beauty of this is you can do an effect that requires knowing the next card on your stack and then faro shuffle and do another one. Finally after 3 more shuffles you are at your stack and can now do any effects using your stack. If you can do a good faro this type of procedure looks very fair. I'm sure I read about this probably in Expert Card Technique when I first learned how to faro shuffle but have forgotten about it a long time ago. Thanks to Steve for reminding me.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jun 10, 2013 07:29AM)
Just to correct myself above it is bank 8 to 4,2 and then your stack.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 10, 2013 08:22AM)
Steve and Steven--I think if you check, there are only 7 faros accounted for in Steven Keyl's post.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Jun 10, 2013 10:10AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-10 09:22, landmark wrote:
Steve and Steven--I think if you check, there are only 7 faros accounted for in Steven Keyl's post.
[/quote]I'm not the expert and haven't had a chance to try it out but I believe you are correct. Steven probably meant you start with 5 faros to get to 8. Then 4,2 and back to stack making 8 total faros. Regardless, I'm very glad he pointed this out to me and it's a principle I intend to use.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Jun 10, 2013 01:29PM)
Landmark, Steve, you are both correct. It's 5 faros to get to index-8. Thanks for the correction!

(Actually, the full index order is 26, 13, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1. I typically just use the last 4 though.)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 10, 2013 06:45PM)
Interesting how it goes from 26 and 13, on to powers of 2. Very useful, thanks.
Message: Posted by: JohnWells (Jul 3, 2013 12:37PM)
This has become my stack of choice. The BCS was dissolved from my memory by a stroke, and two months in hospital with kidney issues has limited my ability, but this stack I can manage.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 3, 2013 12:45PM)
Hope you're feeling better John.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Jul 22, 2013 08:19PM)
QuickerStack is all that is advertised. I highly recommend it.

I memorized the Aronson stack years ago, and I do like some of the built-in features of that stack, however, as has been noted already, some routines that can be done with the QuickerStack cannot be done with the Aronson stack.
Message: Posted by: Magic-Daniel (Aug 24, 2013 02:26PM)
With the QuickerStack, do you know a specific card at a specific position, without looking at the faces of the deck?
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Aug 24, 2013 02:55PM)
Magic-Daniel asked:[quote]With the QuickerStack, do you know a specific card at a specific position, without looking at the faces of the deck?[/quote]
Yes, it's a memorized deck. Given a position, you know the card; given a card, you know its position.
Message: Posted by: Mr. E. Casey (Jun 8, 2019 06:50PM)
I can't find where to purchase this. I can't see any link on his website.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mindbender (Jun 9, 2019 02:55AM)
It's on the products page but when you click it, half way down the page it says that it's out of stock.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Jun 9, 2019 11:16AM)
"QuickerStack" is (and has always been) available in my [url=https://www.deceptionary.com/mindsights.html][i]Mindsights[/i][/url] book.

There used to be a separate publication, created primarily for those who had the first edition of [i]Mindsights[/i], and did not want to repurchase it. But that was almost a decade ago: those in that boat are now few and far between, so when the separate book went out of stock, I decided against reprinting it.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Jun 9, 2019 12:01PM)
I still have "Mindsights" that I ordered from you (and is signed by you with a dedication to me :-) ) from 2005 (Sixth Revised Printing)
In that book is the "Quickstack", not the "Quickerstack".
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Jun 9, 2019 12:53PM)
Waterloophai wrote:[quote]I still have "Mindsights" that I ordered from you (and is signed by you with a dedication to me :-) ) from 2005 (Sixth Revised Printing). In that book is the "Quickstack", not the "Quickerstack". [/quote]
That's correct; "QuickerStack" was released in early 2011, and first appeared in the seventh (revised) printing of [url=https://www.deceptionary.com/mindsights.html][i]Mindsights[/i][/url].

For those who have learned "QuickStack", there may be no compelling reason to move to "QuickerStack" (aka "QuickStack 2.0). The differences are twofold: the management of suits is now done in a way that is more easily learned (a moot point if you have already learned the original method). And the specific arrangement of the cards has changed to better accommodate other (non-memorized-deck) uses of the system (also moot if you have no need to meet those requirements).